Little problem with FireFox
 

After installing some of the hacks on my freshly installed VB3.0.3, members using firefox are having problems.. when they click on a thread title, instead of seeing the thread and the posts, they get a pop up for quick reply... I don't recall having this problem with my other VB3 at www.eclubvw.com. can anybody help me out? I'd appreciate it...



p.s. I am posting this here, cause I doubt vBulletin.com would be willing to help out with a hacked version.

ah.. timeslips and article works when clicking the link thru vBadvanced index page.. but in the forums itself.. they ask to login again when it firefox. so i guess it's a vBulletin thing?

i would tell them to use IE and forget Firefox * theres so many things you can't do with it ... its a big mess if u ask me * i used to have it

I am with you on that one.. I had to use it at school in computer lab and never really cared for it.. I was just curious if there was a fix.. since some of them are biased about firefox.. thanks

Through all the hype, Firefox & Mozilla are still nothing more than geek tools. They are not for 98% of Internet users.

They are lacking in features, support and compatibility. Getting full featured, interactive sites to work well with multiple browsers is next to impossible, so developers shoot for the greatest common denominator. That used to be Netscape, but now it is MSIE.

Sure there are security holes in MSIE, but there are just as many (if not more) in Firefox, no matter who says otherwise. Again, there is the greatest common denominator, coming into play. A hacker will more likely exploit the MSIE holes, because there are more browsers to exploit. More bang for the hacking buck, if you will.

So, choose Firefox/Mozilla to avoid the hackers, but also be prepared to lose functionality. I can see a return to the 'Optimized for (Insert Browser Here)' buttons on sites. In my own usage, I've found far fewer site incompatibilities with MSIE than I did with Opera, and far fewer in Opera than in Firefox/Mozilla.

While I doubt it will happen, Firefox & Mozilla may someday be the premier browser and sites will be optimized for them. But that someday isn't today. Using the alternative browsers should come with the understanding that you will have problems rendering sites.

Whenever I have someone complain about a feature not working, be it on my vB sites or my IPB sites or my Infopop sites, the first question I get answered is "which browser?" If the answer is Firefox or Mozilla, then I tell them the site is not optimized for those browsers - to use the site fully, they must run MSIE. If they demand an alternate, Opera is better.

Although, to be honest, I have far fewer browser compatibility issues with the Infopop boards.

It's not rocket-science making cross-browser compatible sites. Firefox offers far more functionality than IE, both for making websites and visiting them. It just takes a good coder to do the coding :)

It isn't rocket science, but you will lose functionality. Internet Explorer is used by 95 percent of the world. Firefox's fan base adds up to 2% at most. So why bother?

Mozilla is nothing but a last ditch bit of desperation to save Netscape. With it, you lose ActiveX. You lose other functionalities and you gain a huge hole where Firefox's XPInstall system can be tricked into installing myriad bits of malware. All for what? A gain in tabbed browsing? That is an idea stolen from previous alternate browsers, Opera & Lynx to name two.

So why go through the effort to make something work for less than 2% of the users out there, if you're not a Firefox fan? You don't, especially if you want the features everyone has and everyone wants.

Microsoft wiped out Netscape in the Browser Wars of the late 1990s not only because the company's management pushed the bounds of business ethics, but also because its engineers built a better browser. When Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale approved the Mozilla project, an open-source browser based on Netscape's code in 1998, it seemed then like a futile act of desperation. Now, over six years later, it still does.

The Firefox/Mozilla bandwagon claiming that there is a better browser out there are is correct. The problem is, it hasn't been developed yet.

In the meantime, do we optimize for 95+% or do we shaft the 95% to appease the remainder? In this case, I stand by the developers of vB & IPB in going with the majority.

RIP Netscape. We really don't miss you.

Well ActiveX itself is a huge security hole that shouldn't be enabled by default in all browsers IMO. And you can't (by default), install any xpi file in firefox unless you specifically give the site permission to. It doesn't even give you a yes/no box which could confuse the user, it makes a little tab below the tabs bar saying this site was blocked from installing software.

Well for starters there are several benefits of web-standards:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/

I was not an advocate of such standards for a while, but after a year of playing around I've realised that this is the future of the web (and even present: several large sites such as yahoo, msnbc, msn beta search etc have adopted the move to standards).

While not doing an annoying quote-by-quote rebuttal of some of the comments, I'll make a few points.

1. It is absolutely stupid and foolish to tell your users to use one browser, and moreso to force them to use one.
2. Write standards-compliant code without browser-specific code and your site will look perfect in browsers by Mozilla and usually good in IE.
3. Firefox strictly follows W3C standards, so if your page looks bad in Firefox, it's usually your own fault.

and xul is a huge security hole in itself, too bad Firefox is programed in it.